I think that it's pretty far fetched that Hitler said that. Christianity is a large part of German history, Islam is alien. I believe Hitler was a Christian who wanted to revamp Christianity to suit his ideals better. He probably would have incorporated Germanic Paganism and Deist philosophies into Christianity to make "Positive Christianity". Just my opinion, though.

As for Islam, I despise it, and I despise that some populations of White people have succumbed to it.

You may not agree with what David Lane has done ( He's always denied the Bruders killed Alan Berg, though ), but certainly he has done more than most. May I ask just what you have done?

No one's trying to discern the true meaning of my writings, now are they?

What I was doing, and what you seem to fail to understand, was demonstrating that David Lane is not the Messiah of White Nationalism, and what he meant with regards to racial composition in some publication shouldn't be a justification for some belief or position in and of itself.

Example: "David Lane meant X, therefore X is true." That's basically the premise of the OP's thread to begin with. In other words, we need to discern what David Lane meant so we can know how to proceed in life. Bologna.

When someone starts a thread about my writings and what I meant on some position, then I will be the first to jump in and say "Wait, what the hell have I done that it should even matter what I meant?" But I don't see anyone doing that.

According to Savitri Devi Hitler's doctor was a jew and he was poisioning him. 1/8 jew is still a jew and that is why the third reich failed. To many mongrels and not enough Germans. The SS was great though. Oh and the mongrel genes do not wash out they go into the child and get passed on but they never wash out. So it is stupid to say some 1/8 jew would get rid of his jew genes. It wouldn't, they would get passed on and slowly destroy the white race.

You must not know much about history and how it works. "To many mongrels"? What does that mean? As far as I know they were one of the 'purist' societies in the making. But if thats your logic for their defeat then they'd never would have lost in the first place, because America, Russia, and Great Britain were far more 'mongrelized' then the Reich. So the allies would have lost and crumbled underneathed their far more mongrelized blood.

I recently quoted the "Who is White" by David Lane article in another thread. However, I agree with the OP here. We cannot accept mongrel people into our ranks or folk. The point I was trying to make in posting it was that I believe we cannot allow ourselves to become divisive. There is no greater-or-lesser Aryan man and woman - blonde hair and blue eyes, while unique, is not superior to a white with brown hair or brown eyes.

Discussions, as Lane mentions, such as;

Quote:

We are not going to debate over whether the collective remaining White gene pool is 95% or 97% pure Aryan.

... are wastes of time.

Also, I greatly agree with Lane that we need to worry more about preserving our kind as a whole than the individual cultures. When we have secured ourselves, then we can messy ourselves with selective breeding. Until then, survival is key. If that means mixing white ethnicities, so be it, in my book.

But if thats your logic for their defeat then they'd never would have lost in the first place, because America, Russia, and Great Britain were far more 'mongrelized' then the Reich.

Not true I think at least when it comes to America and Great Britain. Germany had a major problem with jews intermarrying amongst Aryans while in America and I assume GB too, it was pretty much taboo to marry outside of the White race unless one wished to be totally rejected by White society. Things did not begin to change in America in that regard until the damnable 1960s.

"Terrorist cells"? That's what jews and ZOG would call them. How about using "freedom fighters" next time bubba instead of carrying the partyline of our enemies to SF?

Party line? You mean when someone refers to themselves as a White Supremacist and makes transparent attempts to suggest others carry out violence against the government and minority groups...that type of party line? I really don't think you're the one to be doling out advice on terminology and critiquing statements by others. Unless, of course, your motto is do as I say and not as I do.